Yes.
Elon Musk - Life is a Simulation.
- Thread starter sammsky1
- Start date
Do you think life is a simulation
No.
Do you think it would make any difference if we were?
Makes no difference whatsoever.
He's not a noteworthy astrophysicist in his own right, though — essentially, he is what Dr. Phil is to psychology — you could swap them right now with an above average astrophysicist or psychologist, and the field at large wouldn't suffer for it. You need significant and tangible accomplishments to be a genuinely noteworthy astrophysicist, and he doesn't hold a candle to his contemporaries as regards heavy-lifting or groundbreaking investigative research. What he is, though, is an effective communicator for the masses — someone who vies for the layman's attention by distilling some fundamental concepts and making them more understandable: which has made him way more renowned in the public sphere than say Starobinsky (who contributed much more towards astrophysics with the cosmic inflation theory but is relatively unheard of). However, that element of fame derived from him being thrust in the public eye as a popularizer shouldn't be conflated with his actual stature as a pure astrophysicist — he's more akin to a wily politician in the realm of more stoic and objective generals/strategists. Same goes for Kaku, though I will concede that he was a more legitimate theoretical physicist before branching out as a pop science figurehead. No idea why Hawking is mentioned in the same breath — magnitudes above both of these lads — a true genius, and not just some middling physicist who's deified for A Brief History of Time. Wrt. Musk, he is a ruthless capitalist and entrepreneurial engineer with a Renaissance Man syndrome — more so than a Tesla-esque inventor.
The likes of DeGrasse and Green are popularizers more than anything these days. They may have been full on scientists in their earlier careers but they are more known for TV and YouTube in the present, which of course doesn't make them any less qualified, but they are obviously not going to be as steeped as full time researchers are.
I find that DeGrasse bloke kind of annoying because he's become too popular and seems to believe his own hype. Sagan is the high water mark for a TV smart bloke. Able to explain stuff easily and still be immensely likeable rather than a know-it-all. Magnus Pyke was like that and James Burke and Patrick Moore.
I honestly have no idea.
I like him, but I also don't like him. He's the epitome of I am very smart.
It's not hard science but I loved Leonard Nimoy in In Search Of... when I was a kid.
I dont understand your questions. Degrass did a lot of work on the supernovae and his research was instrumental in the discovery of dark energy. Michio Kaku is a highly accomplished and influential in the theoretical physics community, and he is the creator of the little thing known as string field theory. Stephan Hawking's early work ( pre 1990s is what has given him the platform to gain celebrity status. Or if you re disagreeing about the " lesser extent i meant it as Stephan Hawking was still taken seriously due to his work earlierI'm a fan of Neil De Grass Tyson (I'm a fan of all public scientists) but "Neil De Grass Tyson is a noteworthy astrophysicist in his own right" is nonsense.
What major scientific contribution has Neil De Grass Tyson made?
What?
What?
What.
Musk is an engineer. He has invented, to my knowledge, absolutely nothing.
He is, however, an absolutely genius generalist. He has worked on computer games (really), helped create an online business directory (in the early days of the internet), helped turn Paypal into a billion dollar company, founded SpaceX and again helped turn Tesla into a billion dollar company. He's worked on the design of cars, rockets, computer games, banking websites, business directory websites, and more.
He's an engineer. He has an engineer's solution to things.
Did you hear about the one where they sent a physicist, an engineer and a marine to rescue some boys from a cave? The physicist spent two weeks coming with a genius way to get the kids out, but it only worked for spherical kids in a vacuum. The engineer spent two weeks building a sub-marine but it couldn't get over the dry patches of land. The marine swam in and got the kids out.
I disagree about him being an average astrophysicist. Fair to say I m not the most informed on everything concerning astrophysics, im still in my first semester of my masters degree, but i have already read up a bit about his work, including some of his papers, and whilst he s not a field changing genius, he still did some solid work before becoming a media personality.
I agree about Kaku being a bit overrated, eloquent people tend to do that, but he is still a rare intellect and is not any less intelligent/ informed because he is a media personality.
As for Hawking, i think my point was lost in translation. I did not mean to imply he was on the level of the aforementioned names, but what was meant is that he, like Kaku and Tyson, became a media personality, and did nit become any less relevant in the scientific community because of his fame.
Can you explain what you mean?
Musk is a wasteman, but not as much as a wasteman as these weirdos on the internet that seem to want to live inside his rectum.
As your reply to Invictus suggests, I think a lot of this was lost in translation.
I don't believe many people use much of Neil De Grass Tyson's research, so he can't be compared to Hawking and Michio Kaku. They're on opposite ends of the spectrum.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
It just means that he is a figurehead these days: a savvy and cut-throat businessman/investor rather than a true inventor like Tesla was — considering almost all of the development and research is done by his employers rather than Musk himself. Now, Elon is definitely interested in innovation and has a lot of brilliant ideas — and has massive balls so he pushes the envelope and forces the competitors to up their game, so credit where it's due, but his end goal is invariably the financial bottom line in terms of the money he can make off of his companies' developmental work— all the while painting himself as a socialistic savior of humanity (which frequently rubs folks the wrong way because it seems rather disingenuous). The Renaissance Man bit was alluding to his diverse set of interests and concerns (automotive sector with Tesla, neurotech and AI with Neuralink and OpenAI and investment in Vicarious, he the brain behind Paypal and Zip2, ballistics and extraterrestrial exploration with SpaceX, renewable energy with SolarCity, etc.) — similar to Tesla (List of patents), but not a hands-on “inventor” in the vein of the latter — more of a facilitator and financial backer who started out as a genuine innovator: increasingly a genius of business acumen and planning and a profiteer of massive government subsidies, as opposed to a genius of scientific research and inquiry.
I personally really really like NDT. He just wants to educate and share his knowledge, and seems extremely passionate about it. He chooses not to get caught up in the science v religion stuff.
Though I think he may be on the spectrum, which makes him a little aloof.
I find the "is the Universe a hologram" questions a bit more interesting than whether or not we are living in a simulation.
Tyson is not even a scientist to be fair, or at least hasn't been for the last 30 years. And he never was a profilic researcher.
Kaku is probably a bit better but he hasn't really done science since the nineties too.
Hawking of course was totally different. He was a real scientist, and while he was never the most important person in the field like TV makes you believe, he was highly influential.